Talk:MKUltra/Archive 2

Moralizing
The entire first paragraph under "Ethical implications and concerns" is moralizing and needs to be deleted or reworked. I'm giving the author of that section the opportunity to clean the work. 12.150.190.10 (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC) JJJanos

older entries
The nomination for featured status for this article was on the FAC page, before they were divided, revision 05:24, 6 July 2003. There were no objections.

The original text for most of this article is taken from the US Federal Government web page at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap3_4.html and should therefore be in the public domain.

Electronic Signals
For a while, a sentence in the intro read: "There is much published evidence that the project involved not only the use of drugs to manipulate persons, but also the use of electronic signals to alter brain functioning." Not for the use of electronic signals, there isn't. Not outside tinfoil-hat land, anyway. There was one experimenter using electroconvulsive therapy, but that is hardly what is implied by the term "electronic signals".--Farry 18:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite true. Experiments were conducted that involved beaming radiation at the brains of apes with the goal of inducing comas, along with other similar things.  Details are in Marks' book.  I intend to find the relevant portions and add them in a bit. Bartleby 06:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ted Kaczynski and MKULTRA
When the Unabomber was still at Harvard he took part in some of the original MKULTRA experiments. Some people think this research "pushed him over the edge" and fueled his crusade against the evils of technology years afterward. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article somewhere. --71.112.154.172 03:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To put forth the theory that the experiments were what "pushed him over the edge", we would need to be more specific about who propounds the theory than just "some people". -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Unclear Sentence
"It was first brought to wide public attention by the U.S. Congress (in the form of the Church Committee) and a presidential commission (known as the Rockefeller Commission) (see Revelation below) and also to the U.S. Senate."

This sentence does not read clearly. Ignoring the parenthetical references it reads: "It was first brought to wide public attention by the U.S. Congress and a presidential commission and also to the U.S. Senate."

The part I bolded above is the unclear part. I do not know enough about this subject to correct this article, but it does need to be addressed. Was "it" brought to the attention of the U.S. Senate similar to being brought to the attention of the wide public, or did the U.S. Senate help in some way to bring the attention to the wide public?

U.S. Dollars or Canadian??
Could someone please clarify whether the money paid out to the canadian victims was in canadian or U.S. dollars? Just add C$ or US$

proper place for conspiracies to run free
trying to get a conspiracy based wiki up and running. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiconspiracy. check it out, add input. most of all help me get it running (I'm kinda amature over here)--Matt D 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Starting date of MKULTRA
Operation Paperclip started in 1945, MKULTRA in 1953. This is not "Right after the approval of project paperclip". Please check your information. -- The Anome 23:01, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Involved "victims"
You state that there have been two documented cases of deaths induced by MK-UULTRA, namely Olson & Blauer. But you also explain that MK-ULTRA discovered that interrogation using both barbiturates and amphetimines, causes death to "the patient". Have any additional "patients" actually died whilst hooked up to such drugs ?

Scuttlebut- Vannavar Bush, tim Leary, and Kocynski ( unibomber ) are reputed to have been involved.
 * Kaczynski was a Harvard during the Leary years, but was not part of MKULTRA. However he was part of a different experiment, involving putting stress on the subject, run by Henry Murray of the OSS,(later CIA). See Harvard and the Unabomber: The Education of an American Terrorist by Alston Chase


 * Yeah, I removed that reference. I haven't heard of more than those two proven deaths.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were more, but the claim needs a strong source. Bartleby 07:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank Olson
In the main MKULTRA page it states that Frank Olsen fell 13 stories to his death. In the page for Frank Olsen it states that he fell 10. Is there a    dispute?? Jaberwocky6669 19:33, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * According to the Olson family's report of a Washington Post story it was 10 stories. See also  -- The Anome 20:33, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Americans

 * "This revelation largely derailed efforts by the victims to sue the CIA as their American counterparts had, and the Canadian government eventually settled out-of-court for $100,000 to each of the 127 victims."

I'm not an American, so I won't make the edit, but isn't it typical to consider Canadians as American too? In this case "US couterparts" would be correct. --Malcohol 16:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that "US counterparts" is a more precise wording. The use of "American" to mean "of the United States" is the most common meaning of the word, though it is controversial.  As such, I don't think many Canadians consider themselves Americans.


 * Acegikmo1 08:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I try to use USA instead of America, I suppose the term US American might be the best term for its denizens. Wblakesx17:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do Dissenting Opinions mean anything?

 * I think that the following statement is biased.

"And while the suit was unsuccessful, dissenting opinions put the Army—and by association the entire government—on notice that use of individuals without their consent is unacceptable. "


 * Dissenting Opinions never have legal weight.


 * Should we add this?


 * It seemed like a philosolphical discussion. I'm not timid to make the edit, but I'd like to discuss it.

159.28.161.52 15:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dissenting opinions are useful in understanding and mapping developing law. Although dissenting opinions do not create binding precedent, they have persuasive value and may be cited in legal briefs and opinions. (User: NLacktman)

Featured article? Appropriate.
Most of the sources are sensationalist conspiracy theory bullshit. Maybe this should be disambiguated for the bullshit version of events and the real version.


 * Dear anon: You marked this article as disputed. Which statements do you feel are in error?   – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Since this dispute is a anonymous slur, I am removing it until somebody comes with real objections to this article. --Martin Wisse 15:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the article is relatively cautious, although some of the links and references do go off the deep end into conspiracism. The page would be improved, I think, if something like this is added:
 * There is no evidence that the CIA (or anyone else) has actually succeeded in controlling a person's complex actions through these techniques, and the area is often plowed by conspiracists. Nonetheless, the secrecy of the government makes a full investigation of claims impossible.


 * Discussion? --Cberlet 17:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I added the desclaimer, but then went back and added that the experiments were "horrific and reprehensible." Seemed appropriate and made it clear what was being disclaimed.


 * "As horrific and reprehensible as the experiments were, there is no evidence that the CIA (or anyone else) has actually succeeded in controlling a person's complex actions through "mind control" techniques, and the area is often plowed by conspiracists. Nonetheless, the secrecy of the government and the file destruction makes a full investigation of claims impossible."


 * I find that the use of the term 'conspiracists' is unbearably biased. For a project that lasted 20 years that had so little material released, considering people who make the claims that the government could have succeeded or is still trying to succeed, 'conspiracists' leans heavily towards validating the government's denials. Your claim of 'conspiracism' could have been made against the Congressmen who investigated the MK-Ultra affair in the 70s. In such a political climate as we have with the current Bush Admin, you can be sure that they would be slandered and called 'conspiracists'. So maybe I find that word too political and the censorship of people curious about what our government did and does to be rather fascist. In otherwords, people who call for government transparency and responsibility, who would demand any issue be investigated today (unlike, say, in the days of Clinton, with the Lewinsky affair) are labeled terrorists-lovers, anti-americans, etc. "Conspiracists" is another way of censoring those who seek that government transparency and directing public opinion in favor of those who don't.


 * There is so much more on MK-Ultra that can be covered, but since it is likely will get edited out of wikipedia, I have created a wiki to cover all the claims, the link is on my userpage. Conwiki 04:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hope this works for folks.--Cberlet 13:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Guess not...how about "widely condemned"?--Cberlet 14:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well... given the facts of the matter, who wouldn't condemn it? Unless we can cite some expert source stating such opinions (which I don't really think we need) we should just leave it up to the reader to condemn it or no. BTW, isn't this a conflict of interest since you and Dennis King are MK Ultra operatives? ;) 14:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Cute. :-) I must be writing this while under mind control. I see your point. I just did not want people to think that the disclaimer was somehow suggesting the experiments were not icky. --Cberlet 14:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually they are presented in such a reprehensible light that it begs the question of the veracity of the claims, and the context. Its very hard for me to believe that these (assumably) insane researchers were given such a free rein. 14:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't personally find this article bias or extreme in either direction anywhere. For skeptics (of the level of evility possible by "powers that be"), I'd confidently claim that throughout the history of our species, there are plenty of examples of governments/rulers performing acts of unspeakable horror upon their own populace.  Power corrupts and the people responsible for this were among the most powerful people/organizations to ever exist. 17:50 (EST) Jan 23/05


 * Take another look at MKULTRA and follow the links under /* See also */. It won't be hard for you to believe once you study the more credible references such as the U.S. Senate hearing.--AI 11:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"Actually they are presented in such a reprehensible light that it begs the question of the veracity of the claims, and the context. Its very hard for me to believe that these (assumably) insane researchers were given such a free rein."

-Your comment sadly speaks volumes about the average person. Let me guess, you didn't hear about this on CNN or Entertainment Tonight so it can't be true? What's "hard for me to believe" is that people like you remain content in your complacency.

U.S. Senate Hearing
I put Kennedy's quote at the introduction of the article so people know right away that MKULTRA was a genuine CIA project and not just some crackpot conspiracy theory made up by tinfoil hat wearers.--AI 11:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda and Psyops do not belong on this page
This statement: " Some of the mind control techniques known to have some success are hypnosis, marketing, and psyops techniques. " was followed by an entirely off-topic discussion. None of these matters are related to MKULTRA, unless someone wants to argue that the term has become generic, and even then, there would have to be a proper cite, not just an idiosyncratic assertion.--Cberlet 00:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Who added that statement? Perhaps they were referring to research discoveries of MKULTRA.--AI 11:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm amused by the term 'propaganda' in relation to the passage. I do think, however, that psyops should be referenced. If an important project led to the discovery or development of new things, it would be listed.

Books
How did you manage to leave out Tranceformation of America, by Cathy O'Brien, one the best-known mind controlled slaves in MK-ULTRA?


 * Why haven't you added that information?--AI 22:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Known Participants: Erroneous?
What is the proof that the people listed here had anything to do with MKULTRA? It looks like someone vandalized the section with Ted Kazynski and various notable people who used LSD.


 * Agreed, a quick search fails to turn up a mainstream source that he was an MKULTRA subject. seems to indicate that he was subjected to experiments by Henry A. Murray, who was also involved in MKULTRA, but stops shot of saying Kaczynski was in MKULTRA.


 * What is the mainstream source for saying Kaczynski was in MK-ULTRA? Chris vLS 28 June 2005 13:20 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the direct link anywhere. The article on Henry Murray only mentions Murray's connection to the OSS.  What is the link to MKULTRA?--AI 30 June 2005 02:39 (UTC)

I can't find any firm information linking either of the "admitted participants" to MK-ULTRA. On that basis and because the original author did not explain how these people were involved, or linked to any infomation explaining that, I am deleting this section of the article. If anyone can find trustworthy information about who ran the project and who drugs were used on, they are welcome to add that with sourcing.


 * AI, it wasn't "blanking," whatever the hell that means. If a claim can't or won't be supported in any way, it is gossip, not fact. If you think the known participants section can be justified in an encyclopedia article, prove it. Explain how Baba Ram Dass, Allen Ginsberg, Theodore Kaczynski, Ken Kesey, Dr. John C. Lilly, and Dr. Timothy Leary were involved in MK-ULTRA and how we know that. Until you do I'm re-deleting that section. This is an encyclopedia article, not a tinfoil-hatted chatboard.


 * Also, explain how just having a list of people who used LSD and labeling them as "known participants" in MK-ULTRA without any other information tells us anything about MK-ULTRA. If they are "known participants," what is known about their participation?


 * I agree with you but I don't think simply removing the content is a solution. If you want to remove it at least copy it here. --AI 09:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's verify/refuse each "participant" and then a corrected version of this section can be moved onto the article. --AI 09:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Robert Hunter, who wrote lyrics for Jerry Garcia, has publicly claimed to have participated in the MKULTRA LSD experiments that took place on the Stanford Campus. He has referenced these experiences in his own public online journal as well as print articles.


 * Atlantic Monthly had a cover article in 04 or 05 on Kacynski's involvement in a psychologically damaging experimental program at Harvard, but dont recall it being MK-ultra per se.


 * Here's a link to the text of that article HARVARD AND THE MAKING OF THE UNABOMBER by Alston Chase © 2000 The Atlantic Monthly, June 2000. Hope it's of useLisapollison 06:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum to my above post - two separate shows on conspiracies and mind control (one on TLC and one on National Geographic) recently aired and they discussed the harvard Experiments. Basically, people suspect that the program Kacynski was in was part of MKUltra, but not part of the LSD experiments.  I'll try and dig up some actual quote. It's probably not a coincidence that the program he was in was conducted at the same time as other programs at Harvard known to be part affiliated with the cia.  Now, just being affiliated with the CIA doesn't make them MKUltra, but back then there was a lot of cross-pollination between projects.  The descriptions of what TK was exposed to sound an awful lot like those horrendous mind-blanking experiments done in Canada on behalf of the CIA. The difference there though is that the canada program also used elctroshock.  BTW - I'm not a conspiracy treu-beliver, just somebody who finds them fascinating.  When it comes to MUKUltra what suprises me most is how much CAN be proved not how much his alleged with no evidence.Lisapollison 12:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify a bit: "participation" in this context could mean just being given LSD by a researcher funded by the CIA (and there were a fair number of them). Ginsberg and Kesey both are related this way, and I assume many more as well. We should add back this section, but make clear that these people were not _conducting_ experiments. I think that's what people had a problem with before. Bartleby 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Massive referencing?
I'm going to do some detailed footnoting of the claims in this article, like what I did on Jean-François de Galaup, count de La Pérouse - what do people think of this? Any comments, suggestions, etc, would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! JesseW 06:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Rewriting needed
I have no idea what the following sentence means: 'This was to stop them from thinking to be not just an ideological but also a political movement.' (found under the heading 'The experiments') Could somone who understands what the sentence was trying to say please rewrite the sentence in a clearer form. Thanks

Conspiracy Theories
In the 'Conspiracy Theories' section, I edited "though all of this is still only speculation" to read "though all of this is only speculation" as the 'still' seems leading to me, and implies a TRULY ongoing investigation.

A few things to add

 * Firstly I'd just mention that there was a large section on MKULTRA in the Sky One programme "Secrets of the CIA" recently, so perhaps that should be mentioned somewhere in the article (I'm not sure if it should be put into the Pop culture references section though, because it was a documentary).
 * Secondly I'd just like to ask (and perhaps this could be included in the article), whether there were people investigating this Project before it was publicly admitted, and were these people seen as Conspiracy Theorists/Wackos etc. at the time?
 * If so it could be that very rare thing, a conspiracy theory that turned out to be true.
 * And finally I was wondering whether there is an issue with other researchers using the results of this "Unethical" research, is it currently acceptable within Academia to use any of the Knowledge or conclusions gained from the Project? (In the same way as it is today consider unacceptable to use knowledge gained from the human experimentation research done by Nazi Doctors during WW2)?
 * --Hibernian 06:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Beatles as Satanists?
"Satanism was promoted by many musical groups of the time, including the Beatles, who also promoted the use of drugs such as Marijuana and LSD..."

I'd like to see a reference for this information, as it seems like this is a biased viewpoint. Unless there is some large factiod about one of the Beatles that I've somehow missed, I don't believe that the Beatles really contributed to the satanist movement at all. The quote that follows the statement doesn't seem to prove this assertion.

--Columba livia 04:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably by someone who listened to the Black album one to many times. 66.229.182.113 10:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Real or Cruft?
Is this real, or Coast-To-Coast-AM-shadow-people stuff? Morton devonshire 00:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually real, can you believe that. --Nuclear Zer0 23:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mindfield by Gordon Thomas
Everybody writing about the MK Ultra and following programs should read this book. It portrays a grim picture of emerging psychiatry and would be Dr Frankenstein. It follows the tracks of Gottlieb, Cameron in Canada and Sargant in UK. What is frightening is that they were little better than nazi or japanese "doctors" in the camps.

http://www.gordonthomas.ie/mindfield.htm

Can the project still be going?
I've been thinking about that for a while, and it isn't impossible at all that the experiments are still running. Now that there is a much advanced technology, the government may actually succeed with more useful chemicals than LSD... Worth thinking about, especially if you are also a little paranoid and thus capable of imagining the government in our heads. As for me, it isnt exactly convincing that almost all the documentary was destroyed, neither is it believable that the project had no scientific background to it. JaneDOA

Citation
This article currently has a rather underwhelming 10 citations; it should include a number of additional citations. Titanium Dragon 08:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Costas Tsalakides and Danny Casolaro
I'd like to add something about Danny Casolaro who was writing about "The Octopus" and Costas Tsalakides of the Vodafone Scandal. Both of their odd suicides have been purpoted to be related to MKULTRA.

Conspiracy Theories and Citations
There's a terrible lack of citations in the conspiracy theories section. the top bit has at least some links, but this part:

Many other "conspiracy theories" have arisen from the depths of the governments shady dealings in mind-control. Mk-Ultra and many other such black-ops projects have been reportedly linked to satanic and occultist activities working inside the U.S. government. Kathy O'brien, an alleged victim of trauma-based mind control claims to be one of the only Mk-Ultra and Project Monarch survivors who has been deprogrammed and lives to tell of the evils working within our her own government. In her book Trance Formation of America, she tells her story of how she and her daughter have been subjected to occultist rituals and programmed for sex slavery for many high-level politicians including Robert Byrd and Dick Cheney. Investigations into these activities have been restricted under the guise of "reasons of national security".

definitely needs some verification. --Cheeesemonger 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

update: Cathy has an article, but her name is spelled wrong here. looking at her website now, but it's rather silly. Here's a link. --Cheeesemonger 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahead cruft factor nine, Mr Sulu...
Some of the pop culture refs may be notable. Not all of them are. A massive collection of passing mentions in barely-notable media does not improve an article. Here they are, please choose the top five or six significant ones.


 * The Richard Condon novel The Manchurian Candidate, and its film adaptations, portrays the assassination of an American presidential candidate by a brainwashed US soldier in a manner which evidenced numerous parallels to the JFK assassination, despite the fact that the novel and John Frankenheimer's original film adaptation were released prior to Kennedy's murder.
 * In the movie Conspiracy Theory, Mel Gibson's character was a subject in the MKULTRA experiments.
 * Various MK-Ultra participants appear as characters in Wisdom's Maw: The Acid Novel (Far Gone Books, 1996), by Todd Brendan Fahey.
 * The movie Jacob's Ladder contains a plot element in which soldiers in Vietnam are involuntarily subjected to mind-altering drugs.
 * See The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, and Ken Kesey
 * The bands mk Ultra and MK-ULTRA took their names from these projects.
 * In the song "Let Robeson Sing" (about Paul Robeson), The Manic Street Preachers refer to MKULTRA as having made Robeson paranoid.
 * A reference to MKULTRA is made in The X-Files episode, "Jose Chung's 'From Outer Space'".
 * Electronica artist The Orb produced a track called "MK Ultra".
 * Drum and bass artist Skynet produced a track called "MK Ultra".
 * Drum and bass artist Amit produced a track called "MK Ultra" that was released as a single 12" and also on an album called "Never Ending".
 * Noise rock band Green Magnet School have a song named "MK Ultra" on their final album.
 * Underground Hip Hop artist Immortal Technique mentions MK ultra in his Anti-Imperialism track "The 4th Branch", on the album Revolutionary Vol. 2
 * Holy Ghost has a song called "MK Ultra" on the album "The Mind Control Of Candy Jones"
 * Lustmord side project Terror Against Terror created a track called "Stalker (MKULTRA Mix)".
 * The conspiracy comic series Vector 13 did an issue on MKULTRA, although there was little to do with the actual project except the name.
 * Stephen King's novel Firestarter dealt with two characters who'd been subject to psychedelic drug treatments as part of college experiments, with mind-altering results.
 * Author Matthew E. Clairmont's first book, Lesser Minds: The Michael Enslow Project, mentions a fictional CIA mind-control project from the 1960s and 1970s called ED-EXCEL, in which researchers used LSD, heroin and physical and sexual abuse to establish coercion. The upcoming trilogy makes numerous references to this project that mirror MK-ULTRA.
 * The professional wrestler Sterling James Keenan's finishing move is called the MK Ultra.
 * Rock band Muse included a photograph of the MKULTRA documents in the lyric booklet enclosed with their fourth album, Black Holes And Revelations.
 * The Role Playing Game Conspiracy X lists the MKULTRA program as a project to help defeat the Greys. The Game states that the MKULTRA subjects were released in the late 60's and that two eventually met up, married and produced offspring with super-enhanced psychic abilities. This led directly to the Ruby Ridge incident. http://www.conspiracyx.com/
 * In the video game The Suffering: Prison is Hell a minor character states he believes that the monsters are hallucinations brought on by experimentation on prisoners, "MK-Ultra if you can believe that shit!" As the game is published by Midway Games, there are minor references to other Midway products such as Mortal Kombat (often abbreviated as MK) as Easter eggs, so the reference could have a double meaning.
 * Cult DJ Fatboy Slim's music video for Sunset (Bird of Prey) was based primarily on the MKULTRA experiments and their effect on USAF pilots.
 * The book "Field Guide to the Apocalypse" instructs citizens to "discontinue taking any medication called MK-ULTRA immediately."
 * "The Magic Bullet", an episode of the television series Angel features a conspiracy theorist who believes the CIA has been monitoring his thoughts on an ongoing basis. After his sudden religious conversion to the worship of Jasmine (who rules by mind control), he states his newfound satisfaction with the belief that the CIA will be exposed via his brain waves to the glory of Jasmine. Specifically his wish is to "spread the love to those MKULTRA bastards."
 * In 2006, the CBS show "NUMB3RS" featured a similar plot to MK-ULTRA conspiracy theories.
 * MKUltra3 is the name of an animated serial, originally produced in the year 2000 by artist Mike Morrison.
 * It appeared on the website ifilm.com in May of 2001. The cartoon tells the story of Cody, Ricky and Vera, three children brainwashed by the CIA into working as assassins. It was pulled from the ifilm.com site in October, 2001, following the events of 9/11. It has since resurfaced on YouTube.
 * MK Ultra is also the name of a medical strain of marijuana.

This is not the first article to be overwhelmed by cruft, please deal with it. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll probably work on this within the next week, unless someone gets to it sooner. Personally, I think it would be best to group the references together, by music references, television references, etc.  One or two sentences per medium and 4-6 bullets should cover it I'd think.  That way the cruft would get eliminated or reduced but the valid references would remain.  I hope.  Wyatt Riot 23:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that should be sufficient. Ideas? Wyatt Riot 11:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking good as of this time. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs review
This article is again in need of review and source-checking. Since this article makes extraordinary claims, it's important that it be supported by high-quality sources to back up those claims. -- The Anome 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello Anome. Some sections here lack inline cites, yes.  I will be adding them shortly.  However I think your removal of a section for being not "clearly verifiable" needs some explanation - was the problem that the link was not on the internet or what?  I won't add it back in, but please clarify what you meant.  The "Aims" section you deleted should be cited to a 1955 CIA document released in an appendix to the 1977 Senate hearing 'Project MKULTRA, the CIA's Program of Research in Behavioral Modification'.  I don't know if there's a .gov or .edu site with a pdf of it available, unfortunately, which would be nice to have.  I'll keep looking.  The full cite is "U. S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Project MKULTRA, the CIA's program of research in behavioral modification. Ninety-fifth Congress, first session, August 3, 1977. Washington : U.S. GPO, 1977." Bartleby 04:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally, we should both cite the original document and provide a link to a place where the a copy of the document can be downloaded. A page reference within the cite would be nice: it's a long document, and without a page reference, it is impossible to verify anything without reading the whole document. Various online copies of (what appears to be) the Church report have original page numbers available in their page images, so it shouldn't be too difficult to provide them in the cite. -- The Anome 06:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's page 234 in this pdf. It's not the Church report, though, it's a later Senate hearing ('76 v '77).  I'd like to try to get my hands on a hard copy or a version through some gov website before citing this, as I can understand how some would be wary of citing a random internet pdf for this.


 * I also tried to cite most of the claims that I saw that needed it. If you could look it over and see if anything else sticks out, I'd appreciate it. Bartleby 06:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with The Anome. Some of the sources cited appear to be legitimate and reliable in accordance with the WP:Reliable Sources statement.  However, some of the material references from blogs, magazines of dubious editorial rigor, and opinion talk shows.  This is a highly controversial subject and should be referenced with multiple, reliable sources or it fails to meet WP standards.  VirginiaProp 21:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The best thing you can do is look through the page and tag any unsourced claim with or discuss specific sources you think don't meet standards here.  Just tagging an article globally is not that helpful. Bartleby 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The section on Canadian involvement mentions 'the CIA and CSIS' but CSIS was not created until 1984. Prior to that the RCMP handled intelligence-gathering, though I've no idea if they were involved in this. Stevebeck (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch, Steve. I can't find my references in my library at the moment, but I'll look again tomorrow.  Until then, I've tagged the claim as being questionable. Bartleby (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Without any sources to contradict the Canadian element in MKULTRA aside from doctors, I believe any Canadian intelligence agency should be removed for the time being, until a credible source puts a finger on Canadian assistanceMgraham1985 (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the RCMP were involved in MKULTRA or not, CSIS was not, as it did not exist until eleven years after all information was ordered destroyed. Further, in the same year as CSIS's creation, the MKULTRA experiments under Dr. Cameron were broadcast on the CBC. It is doubtful that CSIS, newly created in the wake of the McDonald Commission (which stated that intelligence should be separate to policing), would be involved in such a project when the illegal and unethical practices of the program were already known. 72.136.115.100 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the claim of CSIS involvement, which, as repeatedly noted above, is impossible for the time period in question, and added a citation-needed tag for the rest of the sentence. Rizome (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mind Control "Victim" Video
The Mind Control Victim (Cathy O'brien) video video added to external links seems to need some sort of third party citation. If there is no standard for posting YouTube video, any person can post their own video and then it can referenced in WikiPedia. Am I completely off-base here? VirginiaProp 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite correct, plus Cathy O'brien is a well known conspiracy crank.--Cberlet 12:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy jesus, the world is scary. What can I do to protect myself from the government!??? Amphitere 18:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC) "The Quantum Future"

Trauma based mind control
Why no section on Cathy O'brien, Sue Ford or the kids from the Franklin coverup (probably more victims) talking about trauma based mind control?

El Juche (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think because we're erring on the side of verifiability in this case. For a lot of people the details of MK-Ultra are unbelievable enough as it is, even with complete documentation.  Staying away from conspiracy theorizing proper is the best approach, IMHO. Bartleby (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References
See Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the  tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

NatGeo Feature
NatGeo did a show on aspects of this subject but it's odd I don't remember them ever mentioning the term MKULTRA. I always wondered if the 'MK' comes from 'Manchurian Kandidate'. The video is online here alatari 97.85.176.121 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

MKULTRA popular culture reference
I attempted to edit this page by introducing a web project, www.mkultra-foods.com, in the popular culture section, as it is an active web project involving direct reference to mkultra, and of a far more significant and critical extent than the passing, superficial references otherwise cited. Admittedly I am new to this process, perhaps the edit should have been vetted here first. In any case the entry was completely removed.

It is true that I am the author of www.mkultra-foods.com. I did not consider the edit to be a conflict of interest as such because the information that was added was strictly informational, namely that the site is a public, available, and as such pop cultural reference to MKULTRA.

My fear is that editors on the wikipedia are privileging mainstream media pop references, such as passing references in big budget Hollywood film, simply because of an all too common attitude which stipulates that commercial success legitimates cultural production. It is true that the site is obscure comparatively speaking, and completely non-commercial (the "donate" page on the site is a direct parody of the "Scooter Libby Legal defense Fund") but no less public than any of the other references which hardly deal with the actual content of MKULTRA.

If anyone has advice regarding this matter it would be much appreciated. (David LaRiviere) Misterkincaid (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Misterkincaid


 * As the editor who removed your link, I'll explain my reasons. Yes, there is the conflict of interest. And while I do agree with your statements, the issue at hand isn't one of mainstream vs. underground or cultural relevancy, it's notability, which is a general inclusion criterion on Wikipedia. We know that the artists and/or works linked are notable simply because there are articles about them, and if you browse through some of those articles, you'll find that their subjects can be almost as obscure as your work. Adding to this is the issue of undue weight, that a paragraph regarding your work is almost as long as the paragraph of all musical references and half that of all movies and other media. I think that you also need to understand the history of this page, which at one point was filled with pop culture references of all kinds, half of them to underground artists and virtually none of them referenced. It got to the point where it was either delete the lot or trim the fat, which essentially meant that we fall back on the general inclusion criteria as a criteria for inclusion in the pop culture section. I hope this helps. Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response Wyatt Riot. I do not say "thanks" as a way of ingratiating myself to the editorial prerogative, but genuinely I appreciate the feedback and am further optimistic with regard to developing a more personal involvement with the wikipedia process given such response. I have browsed through many of the references cited in the popular culture section on MKULTRA, in fact I was familiar with the now disbanded rock band named after MKULTRA from before reading the Wikipedia entry. I do not say this to be argumentative, however I can not help but feel that such entries are rather superficial in terms of how they actually relate to the content at hand. In terms of "notability," I understand that this is a criterion of wikipedia, however it is also at the cross hairs of the misgiving that I was attempting to articulate. Notibility may well translate to a cultural prejudice, insofar as that what is notable is also what is commercially "successful". In any case, in the interest of allowing the mkultra-foods.com site to be recognized by Wikipedia, it should be noted that there have been several public events wherein the site was directly animated. Both Latitude 53 Society for Artists in Edmonton and Gallery SKOL in Montreal hosted evenings that staged "Evening of Mind Kontrol" performances in relation to the site. In the case of Latitude 53 an article was published in their 53 quarterly magazine, and full CARFAC artist fees were paid for the performance as well as a professional writing fee for the essay. The MKULTRA-Foods site is also hyper-linked to the "Greylodge" website and receives about 400 hits per day-- not a huge lot, but something. I think that you are absolutely right that the entry was too long. My question is: considering the history of the page, given that there was once too many popular culture references, is there perhaps still a case to be made for a ongoing online project that directly references MKULTRA in a socio/political fashion? If an abbreviated addition could be fashioned, could you help me to workshop its wording? thanks for your consideration. Misterkincaid (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, I see two options. Personally, I think the best would be to have a new article created, as long as your site meets the notability requirements for websites (that's probably the most appropriate of all of them), but you'll have to read through and make sure it does. You certainly could create the article yourself, but because of the conflict of interests involved, I would recommend asking a friend or current Wikipedia editor to do so.  Once the article is here, we can add an internal link from this article.  The other option would be to add a mention without having an article, but it would need to be referenced from reliable, 3rd-party sources, not just your own website.  The second option is the easiest, but the first option results in another article on Wikipedia, which is, after all, the main goal of this project. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks once again, you've given me something to think about. I would agree that I was a bit rash in my initial approach, however I think that there could be an idea there that you've helped me to uncover. Anyway, time will tell, I've got homework to do before getting there. Cheers. Misterkincaid (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

refactor subjects whose participation is unproven out of "famous subjects", please
Candy Jones did have a career as a fashion model, yes, but if anyone recognizes the name today it's surely because of her claims to be a government mind control subject -- claims which have not been substantiated despite thirty, forty years of airing? I would suggest that the "famous subjects" section be reserved for only those people whose participation is verified. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should be a little broader. Most of the documentation about MKULTRA has been destroyed, so verification may be impossible.  That doesn't mean we have to be totally credulous.  We can make clear distinctions and balance the weight given.  Mentioning Cathy O'Brien is probably fine, but extensive discussion of her claims belongs elsewhere. Bartleby (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very unfortunate that so much of the documentation has been destroyed, but we really can't adopt a policy that says we therefore consider people to be MK-ULTRA victims if they claim to have been MK-ULTRA victims, even if not a scrap of evidence supports their claim. We can certainly mention their claims in this article, but doing so in a section titled "famous victims" makes it seem like Wikipedia is saying "why, yes, this person was a famous victim of MK-ULTRA". -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I don't think we should say that they were subjects, only that they claim to have been. I'm not sure if putting them under that section heading gives credence to their claims.  I see your concerns though.  I think "famous subjects" is a poor name anyway, so maybe we should just rethink that.  Maybe something like "Subject participants" or "Subjects associated with MKULTRA." Bartleby (talk) 05:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are right that "Famous subjects" needs changing. I'll work on this as time allows. Apostle12 (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Trimming
Trimmed a lot of external links out - many were duplicates, some were dead or obselete. We only need one on-line copy of the ULTRA documents, not six, so I picked the one that looked the most accessible (realistically it should be the most complete and comprehensive one, but that's a long job to slog through them all). I've also refactored the references/footnotes section, and when I have the time will be embedding what books I can in their first appearance as a footnote (subsequent appearances remain in the author/year/page format). I'd like to remove or embed the news stories - given their brevity there's virtually no reason I can see for news articles to be as references rather than inline citations.
 * This is one area where WP guidelines really need to be firmed up. Reference sections increase usability in my mind, but they do make pages longer and possibly more difficult to maintain.  I'd vote to keep them, but meh.  Bartleby (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "...but meh?" Not sure what you mean here. However I also like lots of references.Apostle12 (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just mean it's not essential since it's not about content per se.  Bartleby (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I've trimmed down the conspiracies section considerably. The Extreme Abuse Surveys are very suspect, being an extension of the satanic ritual abuse moral panic, and they're self-reported surveys of a self-selected group that is published by a company that specializes in fringe and controversial topics. Cathy O'Brien is also quite suspect, from what I understand she's not a researcher, she's a child advocate and a bit of a nutter to boot. The references also placed undue weight on one set of fringe opinions through the use of quotations and numbers as well as citing the same source (the EAS) twice when it's actually two citations to the same dubious information. Carol Rutz is also a dubious source for this information. The "mind control creates multiples" is an unfounded fringe claim that is not backed by any research but is passed around quite frequently among the DID/MPD groups. Leo Ryan basically just needs a reference and I have no objections to it being replaced. Ryan's page doesn't seem to discuss ULTRA, so a bit of exposition on the link would be nice context too. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories--Lawrence Teeter assertions
WLU's most recent edit of the MKULTRA article introduces some distortions as to what Sirhan Sirhan's lawyer asserted. In particular, Lawrence Teeter asserted that Sirhan Sirhan was an experienced hypnotic subject who was under the influence of hypnosis when he fired his weapon at Robert Kennedy; considerable evidence supports this particular assertion. Based on forensic evidence from the official Los Angeles County autopsy of Kennedy's body (proximity of weapon, direction of gunshot wound, angle of entry of gunshot wound) and evidence collected at the scene (too many bullets to have been fired from Sirhan Sirhan's gun alone), Teeter also asserted that another weapon, and thus another shooter, were involved in the assassination; considerable evidence supports this assertion also. Teeters discovered links between the CIA and the appointment of Grant Cooper as Sirhan Sirhan's original attorney, and Teeter asserts that the CIA succeeded in compromising Grant Cooper, which is why he purposefully blew Sirhan Sirhan's defense; some evidence supports this assertion, especially a review of the flawed defense that Cooper mounted on Sirhan's behalf. It is Teeter's final assertion for which we have little supporting evidence: that since we know the CIA participated in MKULTRA experiments using hypnosis, and since we know that the CIA learned hypnotic techniques from those experiments, and since we know there was a connection between the CIA and Sirhan Sirhan...that the CIA was the party responsible for hypnotizing Sirhan Sirhan and thus linked to the assassination plot. I have revised the section to reflect this more precise understanding of Teeter's assertions, which he lays out quite carefully in the cited interview.Apostle12 (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just listened to the full one-hour interview, and, while Teeter certainly made a reasonable-seeming case for CIA involvement and mind-control tactics, the one thing I did not hear was any mention of MKULTRA, How many minutes into the interview does he make this link? Bustter (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with the wording of the current text (and have replaced the bare link with a citation template again). In order for there to be greater detail or emphasis without avoiding undue weight on the statement of Sirhan's lawyer (not exactly a disinterested party and essentially discussing in a non-reliable source that is basically self-published) a better source would need to be cited.  However, if everyone else is fine with the current text, I'd say that's consensus.  I made one change in the wording of the section to reflect that it's Teeter's belief rather than firmly proven fact.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 22:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. I think it's okay to use this kind of sourcing to verify Teeter's beliefs, especially since the "publisher" in this case is a radio station of known repute and Teeter himself is speaking.Apostle12 (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'd say that since Teeter is the one who is speaking the source is verifiable, but I would hesitate to call it reliable, but the current wording and tone is exactly to the limits of what you could say with a source like that. The source for the Ryan text appears to be impeccable (Edwin Mellen press appears to be scholarly, hurray!)  Do you have Meier '89?  The wording is somewhat equivocal - was Ryan on his way to Jonestown, at Jonestown, was he assassinated by Jonestown members or merely killed (the former requiring foresight/planning, the latter merely impulse) and does anyone agree with Meier that Jonestown was linked to MKULTRA?  How explicitly does Meier link Ryan's visit to MKULTRA, could it be elaborated further (i.e. could we reference that Ryan was killed because he was investigating?)  The current wording is a bit strong for a single source (i.e. 'was thought' implies agreement when it could be only Meier who thinks there is a link) while a second would make me much more comfortable with the passive voice.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 01:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying more would require a bit more research. Ryan was assassinated after his visit, just before boarding the plane.  I am familiar with Meier '89, however I no longer have access to it--I have initiated a search in our county library system, since used copies are remarkably expensive at $160-230.  Other authors have written of the CIA MKULTRA link to Jonestown, though perhaps less authoritatively.


 * The really sticky issue concerns exactly who killed the five people, including Ryan, on that airstrip. The official story is that the People's Temple security force initiated the attack, however surviving witnesses speak of the shooters having assumed a disciplined military formation that was beyond their capability. Some of the shooters--not all have been identified--may, in fact, have been Special Forces or CIA who either augmented the Temple security force during this event or were imbedded. If the CIA did indeed maintain a presence at Jonestown, one motive might have been to prevent Ryan from returning to the United States with information that would have enabled him further to shackle the Agency.  After Ryan was assassinated, the restrictive legislation he co-authored and promoted died; it has never been resurrected.  Congressman Ryan was the CIA's most vocal critic, and after the Church Committee revelations he held considerable sway in Congress.Apostle12 (talk) 05:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My libraries don't have access either, if I really needed to I could probably get it from interlibrary loan but that costs money and I'm not that interested in the page. Ideally both the official story and notable dissenting opinions should be included (briefly) with the info on why they thought it related to MKULTRA (unless the evidence is realy thin, really circuitous or really circumstantial, then I'd say just a "some believe" and no detail is sufficient).  We'd need to find an appropriate path between a coatrack of Jonestown conspiracy theories, really excessive details and undue weight on a fringe theory.  If what you have above is all Meier had, I'd suggest sticking with the "some believers".  WP:BRD, if I've any issues then I'll raise them.  WLU (t) (c) (rules -  simple rules) 14:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist language about "radiation" and "channeled panic" etc.
That tinfoil-hat BS about "pregnant women being radiated, among other things" and "testicles irradiated", and also "During this program LSD's corollary effect on controlled and channeled mass panic was discovered" have the typical wording and sound of some conspiracy theorist that utterly have lost his footing with reality. All those paragraphs have the "citation needed" marker, and unless they are cited (and cleaned) soon, they should simply be removed. The USA probably have lots of skeletons and other bad stuff (incl. waterboards) in the closet, but such sentences ends up simply taking the credibility out of the entire article. If pregnant women were being "radiated", then I want to know at least with what they were being radiated with, and preferably also to what purpose, and definitely want a citation. Stolsvik (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The information appears to have been retained from a poorly-formatted anon addition a while ago. I haven't heard of Operation Teapot except in reference to the bomb test.  There certainly have been questionably ethical radiological experiments, but I don't know whether or not they were conducted under the aegis of MKULTRA or not.  Dr. Paulsen's work seems to be what the anon meant in this case (see: [here|http://books.google.com/books?id=HyFbdu7KKswC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=Dr.+C.+Alvin+Paulsen&source=web&ots=metW0NZ36f&sig=p-p957Lp4jJCAI_6sC-VP7HA7qk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result], for example).  Needs citation for sure, though. Bartleby (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)